this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
492 points (99.4% liked)
Ukraine
10155 readers
488 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those bombers have been wantonly dropping cruise missiles of to hit Ukraine. Both are significant.
Yeah, because powerful countries for better or worse did not decisively intercede to destroy them.
Oh cmon dude. There are actual reasons that the west escalated their aid over a time.
It's not a reason I agree with, but their logic in doing so is also entirely justifiable.
The west has escalated aid, but the powers that be in this situation in the US whoever they are I don't really care the specifics it is so tiringly repetitive the closer you look never wanted Ukraine to win decisively or else they would have made different choices.
The example you may have heard of is the Biden administrations reluctance to provide Javelin antitank missiles... which didn't end up being a decisive delay and in my opinion was a major miscalculation from Biden.. but it pointed clear as day to a bipartisan deeper reluctance in the US military/political power apparatus to provide Ukraine the tools to decisively beat Russia directly.
There has been ample examples of US air superiority assets and intelligence capability being used to indirectly help Ukraine assets perform tactical feats, but strategically there has been a very careful absence that I think is obvious to anyone who understands modern combined arms/mechanized war at a basic level.
What I am talking about is artillery, most people think what you would need to stop a Russian ground invasion are tanks, antitank missiles or stealth jets so expensive they can't afford to fly but not only does that misunderstand modern warfare with fpv drones, flying bombs and all kinds of guided weaponry that can defeat everything but very heavy armor, it misunderstands the history of combined arms warfare up until this point in that the answer is always in the end Artillery.
If the Pentagon wanted Ukraine to decisively beat Russia it would have provided them 155mm shells and armored self propelled artillery like it provides bombs for Israel committing genocide in Gaza. Even a meager targetted investment and acceleration of the Bohdana SPG program to produce a domestic artillery system in Ukraine that could fire 155mm shells would have made a stunning difference if it had gotten off the ground earlier in the war. The reasons are obvious, and they stare down at you like monoliths if you start to ask critical questions about why the Ukraine war has gone on so much longer than "everyone thought it would".